My analysis is that the Bush administration is desperate for cash and they have devised this scheme which I think plays right into the hands of the resistance. This is how it looks: The USA invades, destroys the country and now sells it at bargain basement prices to American companies. It is selling Iraq into indentured servitude. Iraqis owned Iraq and now it will be a colony. I do not think this will play well with Iraqis at all. I think it will backfire.
Imagine some guy comes over and bulldozes your house down. Then he says “look, you can’t keep up the mortgage payments so I’ll buy the house from you and you can pay me rent. Here’s $500 for the house. It’s not worth a penny more is it? It is totally destryed”.
Even if they arent about to sell off Iraq… I hardly think people will pay a good price to do business in the middle of a shootout and occupation. Iraqis lose both ways.
It seems to be a blinkered free market type solution for a country that isn’t in the least bit ready for it. Why is it that the CPA and its backers don’t understand that? Foreign restrictions (say 30-40%) on industries like this are crucial to lay the ground work a working market economy and Iraq can always de-regulation later. Assuming they want to.
I can’t believe I’m defending the Administration but, this was hardly unprecedented. Generally speaking when the IMF and World Bank is involved you have these types of privatization plans pushed/implemented. Granted you could say the reason they’re their is the war, but even if a shot hadn’t been fired, they’d have been invloved at some point. Not that that’ll make a bit of difference to the Iraqiis. Before I’m asked for a cite just type either in google with the word privatisation.
Hey Sailor, great idea! The worlds largest yard sale. Yeah, we could move all the movable stuff on E-Bay. Sell three of Saddam’s palaces to the Dixie Chicks. Sell all the sand to the Eskimos who don’t have any sand. Sell Saddam Hussein to the French for all that stuff that they stole that they keep in the Louvre Museum. Yeah, we can make billions. Then we can…
…Aw shucks Sailor, it won’t work. Read closer. This report only says that the newly formed Iraqi government is merely privatizing the old Saddam controled sector of the economy and accepting iraqi and foreign bids on the rebuilding their country’s infrastructure. Too bad. I guess they just want their country to prosper. Oh well…
You have plans pushed on to countries that have nationalized industries not to mention existing civil infrastructure. You can’t be trying to compare Thailand or Argentina to Iraq can you?
The problem here, IMHO, is who’s making the decision to privatize and allow this level of foreign investment. ISTM that this is a decision to be made by Iraqis and not by Americans.
And in support of this thesis, I quote GWB, in his speech to the UN this morning:
This action undermines progress towards self-government, by locking Iraq into major economic and societal changes of our design - privatization of key industries, extensive foreign investment - before they can say yea or nay.
Maybe we should write their constitution for them, too.
What the hell are you talking about? Your example fails in many aspects. Countries ask for loans from the IMF or World Bank and are free to accept the conditions or not but lenders are entitled to set their conditions. The situation in Iraq is that it has been destroyed and is now being sold off without their consent. It is not being sold off to Iraqis but to foreigners. Iraqis are having their country destroyed and stolen from them.
The Iraqi economy was very much government controlled. I believe more than 3/4 of the economy was in government hands. The fact is that the US invasion has destroyed the country and it is now being sold off at bargain prices in an effort to get some cash. The USA destroyed the country and the USA should pay to rebuild it. Instead they are selling the country off to foreign firms who will own what was property of the Iraqi people. In any case, this is a decision for the Iraqis to make, not to have imposed on them. Any truly independent Iraqi government in the future would declare these sales null and void and expropriate the properties. The USA has NO right to be doing this. Of course, they had no right to invade and destroy in the first place but the least the US government should do if they had any morals or any shame is pay for the reconstruction.
… but the least the US government should do if they had any morals or any shame is pay for the reconstruction.
Damn Sailor, have you lost your everloving mind? At great cost of human sacrifice we have liberated the iraqis from the in humane tyranny of a viper , but then, these same ungracious people expect us to pay for the damages incurred during their most-likely last chance to be included into the hall of free men.
And then some of the more fanatical of these iraqi ingrates expect us to pay for the total costs of the reconstruction of the new Iraq?
Are these people children? Can’t they act like men?
That’s basically what we did with Japan. If I remember my history correctly, lawyers were not specifically used to help with the constitution. Just ordinary folks and some common sense.
I personally would prefer the UN not be involved in the process because I think it would end up being a befuddled mess of contradicting laws. Plain language with a description of intent. JM2C.
Seems rather cheap of us to present these people with something unasked, and then expect them to pay for it. It’s not as if the US is willing to let the Iraqis reject our giftage, and go back rule by Saddam. We’ve put ourselves in the peculiar position of forcing liberty down their throats, whether they like it or not.
Most reasonable people would agree that such rhetoric is dipped in the most arrogant, self-aggrandising dellusional fantasy this side of some of the classic anti-Western propaganda which came out of the Kremlin in the 1950’s.
Just to confirm beyond all doubt that you don’t have a compassionate, non-sanctimonious bone in your body… you offered us this…
Rarely have I seen a more blatant case of “projecting” one’s inadequacies onto those less fortunate than ourselves.
sailor and Grey My apologies for not responding sooner, I had in fact responded three times yesterday, but the hamsters ate it
Only to the degree that the IMF is involved.
Did I say I disagree with you? What I said is that I’m not surprised given that the IMF is involved. Hell I almost started this post myself a few weeks ago when I found out the IMF was there (I’ve followed the Iraq coverage mostly through this MB, but hadn’t noticed their involvemnet until the UN bombing when they pulled out) the major difference being ‘How long before the IMF starts selling off Iraq’. I also think that something similar would probably occur even were an elected body making the decisions. Why? Because this is the IMFs M.O.
The point being that the country involved generally has a working administration that can either accept IMF recommendations or reject them. In this instance the CPA and US administration can hardly be considered to be representative of Iraqi interests.
Peace, order and good government are what the CPA is tasked to provide. They’ve got a bit of work to do.
